Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182005
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15612 of 2023
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlakar Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal (AOR 1041/12) holding brief of Sri Kamlakar Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Jatav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.
3. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed notices are not being issued to respondents No. 5 to 8.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that an advertisement was published by U.P. Public Service Commission bearing No. 1 of 2006-07 for recruitment on the post of Lecturer Engineering Branch in different department of Mechanical Engineer, Electronics Engineering, Instrumentation & Control, Computer Science and Engineering, Leather Technology, Quality Control Leather, Footwear Technology, Shoe Design, Dairy Engineering, Ceramics, Electrical Engineering and Textile Design including Interior Decoration. The writ petitioner claims to have applied in pursuance of the said advertisement and he was subjected to interview so conducted on 16.08.2007. The final result of the selection was declared on 29.08.2007 in which the name of the writ petitioner found place at serial no. 1 as whereas the respondent No. 5 to 8 figured at serial no. 2 to 5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the State Government thereafter proceeded to issue appointment orders in favour of the respondents No. 5 to 8 and they assumed the charge on 10.10.2008, 17.12.2008 respectively. So far as the writ petitioner is concerned he was not issued any appointment order despite the fact that his name was already figuring in the merit list. According to the writ petitioner on 22.12.2015 the State Government proceeded to issue an appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner. Due to family compulsions the writ petition could not join the duties at that point of time post issuance of the appointment order dated 22.12.2015 but he assumed the charge on 27.04.2016. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that a tentative seniority list has been published on 20.03.2021 under the signature of the third respondent, Director, Technical Education, Kanpur U.P. seeking objection to the said list for making it final. A copy of the tentative seniority list has been appended as Annexure 9 at page 58 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 14 of the writ petitioner according to which the name of the writ petitioner finds place at serial no. 10 as whereas the name of the respondents no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 finds place at serial no. 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is the submission of the writ petitioner that once the writ petitioner and the private respondents had been selected in pursuance of the same advertisement and the writ petitioner in the select list was placed over and above the private respondent though the writ petitioner had been accorded appointment subsequently, without his fault he is entitled to be conferred seniority over and above the private respondent. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions contained under the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 so as to contend that the provisions contained under the said rules come to his rescue. He further submits that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 9 of the 1991 rules before preparation of a final seniority list and tentative seniority list is to be prepared and objections are to be invited as per the sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of 1991 Rule and there have to be decided before finalizing the same.
5. Prayer in the present petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to consider the objection of the writ petitioner dated 25.03.2021 and the reminder dated 18.06.2023.
6. Yesterday when the matter was taken up then a specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to whether the tentative seniority list is still in existence or it has transmformed into a final seniority list.
7. Today learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed before this Court a supplementary affidavit wherein in para 6 it has been asserted that the seniority list is till date provisional and the objections of the writ petitioner have not been decided as no final seniority list has been prepared. Sri Jatav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the official respondents, on the other hand, submits that if the tentative seniority list is still in existence it has not transformed into a final seniority list then the objection so preferred by the writ petitioner is to be decided, of course, subject to compliance of principles of natural justice with relation to the affected parties. He further submit that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection to the submission made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
9. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the second respondent, Special Secretary, Technical Education, Anubhag-2, Government of U.P. along with the self attested copy of the writ petition and on the receipt of the same the second respondent shall proceed to finalize the tentative seniority list after considering the objection of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law in the light of the provisions contained under U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 with most expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order subject to the rider that the same has not already been finalized.
10. Since the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response, thus, passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits as the second respondent shall decide the issued strictly in accordance with law. The benefits of the present judgment will come into the aid of the writ petitioner provided the final seniority list has not been prepared.
11. It is further clarified that in case the second respondent is of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided by any other authority then the objection of the writ petitioner be transmitted to the said authority who shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023
Rajesh
